9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.259/2019 whereby it has modified the judgment dated 15.04.2019 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Complaint Case No.2198/2016 and while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ' the N.I. Act), modified the sentence of three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 4,70,000/- by sentencing him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and directing to pay compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 4.As per averments in the complaint, the petitioner happens to be the relative of the complainant and relations between them were cordial. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 138 of the N.I. Act by the trial Court. It is submitted that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable presumption. The complainant has not produced any document regarding payment of money to the petitioner. Being so, the judgment of the trial Court as also of the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 Volume 5 SCC 418. 6.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supporting the impugned judgment submits that from the material available on record, it is manifestly clear that the complainant has duly proved his case. There is no complaint lodged by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g commission of theft of the said cheque or against the complainant for misuse of the cheque. Further, there is no contradiction in the pleadings of the complainant and his evidence before the trial Court as in the complaint he has clearly stated that the petitioner obtained a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- from him in lieu of sale of his residential plot in favour of the complainant as he was in need of money for commercial purposes and that he issued the said cheque of Rs. 4,50,000/- in his favour. Before the trial Court, he has reiterated the same facts and proved the same by leading documentary evidence. 10.So far as judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it being distinguishable from the facts of the present case is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
